Olise

[Sutekh]

Don't we also get a FIFA solidarity payment and training compensation as he is under 23 and this is an international transfer?

Yes, if he does move to Munich do Reading still get any sell on clause that they might have or is it just the meagre FIFA solidarity & training comp?

[Hound]

Can’t get too excited about this and the possibility of a nice injection of cash as it’s so uncertain what it may or may not be, or what the money would be used on

There’s a slight chance it has been affecting the sale of the club I guess so pleased it should be all over from pov

[WestYorksRoyal]

Guesswork, but I'd bet on a substantial amount up front < 50%, a load of guaranteed instalments over several years and achievable add ons for things like appearances, trophies won and international appearances (many of which I expect to happen given it's Bayern).

[WestYorksRoyal]

Can’t get too excited about this and the possibility of a nice injection of cash as it’s so uncertain what it may or may not be, or what the money would be used on

There’s a slight chance it has been affecting the sale of the club I guess so pleased it should be all over from pov

The club is now worth more due to this deal. The uncertainty has definitely had an impact on the process.

[Snowflake Royal]

Don't we also get a FIFA solidarity payment and training compensation as he is under 23 and this is an international transfer?

It's what guarantees we're getting at least something given we've been officially told we don’t have a sell on clause, even though the judgement involving his transfer suggests we do.

No idea if you get it on top of a sell on fee. I'd have thought any sell on fee includes that as part of it.

[Stranded]

Don't we also get a FIFA solidarity payment and training compensation as he is under 23 and this is an international transfer?

It's what guarantees we're getting at least something given we've been officially told we don’t have a sell on clause, even though the judgement involving his transfer suggests we do.

No idea if you get it on top of a sell on fee. I'd have thought any sell on fee includes that as part of it.

Solidarity payment involves a slice of 5% of the total fee paid to clubs who trained Olise - so a share of 3m based on years at the club between 12 and 18 I think. Training payment is a bit more complicated.

[From Despair To Where?]

Don't we also get a FIFA solidarity payment and training compensation as he is under 23 and this is an international transfer?

Yes, if he does move to Munich do Reading still get any sell on clause that they might have or is it just the meagre FIFA solidarity & training comp?

From my extensive experienice playing FM , we get both.

[Sutekh]

Don't we also get a FIFA solidarity payment and training compensation as he is under 23 and this is an international transfer?

Yes, if he does move to Munich do Reading still get any sell on clause that they might have or is it just the meagre FIFA solidarity & training comp?

From my extensive experienice playing FM , we get both.

Well that's the Academy and, hopefully, HMRC paid for for next season then

[rabidbee]

Don't we also get a FIFA solidarity payment and training compensation as he is under 23 and this is an international transfer?

It's what guarantees we're getting at least something given we've been officially told we don’t have a sell on clause, even though the judgement involving his transfer suggests we do.

No idea if you get it on top of a sell on fee. I'd have thought any sell on fee includes that as part of it.

Errr, where does all this talk of us having a sell-on clause come from. Because (having read the Olise article in the Guardian today) I’ve just looked at the FA charge, and it relates to us agreeing in 2019 to a clause to pay his agent 10% of the money we received if/when we sold him. It wasn’t a 10% sell-on clause for us.

[Snowflake Royal]

Don't we also get a FIFA solidarity payment and training compensation as he is under 23 and this is an international transfer?

It's what guarantees we're getting at least something given we've been officially told we don’t have a sell on clause, even though the judgement involving his transfer suggests we do.

No idea if you get it on top of a sell on fee. I'd have thought any sell on fee includes that as part of it.

Errr, where does all this talk of us having a sell-on clause come from. Because (having read the Olise article in the Guardian today) I’ve just looked at the FA charge, and it relates to us agreeing in 2019 to a clause to pay his agent 10% of the money we received if/when we sold him. It wasn’t a 10% sell-on clause for us.

I can't recall. I remember it not being as clear cut as people were saying from a quick skim, but not something I put the effort intrying to be sure on.

[Crusader Royal]

I don't think you understood Winst, because that's exactly what he's saying. Pretty much all fees for years are paid in installments.

I understood perfectly.
First of all add ons are not the same as payments by instalments. The first is extra payments which may or may not become payable if certain milestones are achieved. Obviously we’d only get a share if the milestone is achieved.
Instalments is just a payment plan. But there is no reason why our sell on amount (if it exists) couldn’t be payable in one lump sum. If Palace get £30 million now and we are due 10% of the total then them paying out £6 million isn’t unfeasible. It would just be a negotiation point when the contract is drawn up
But we don’t know. It’s all speculation and we probably won’t know until whenever this years accounts get published

We do know that virtually no tranfers are upfront payments.

Don't know why you're still trying to argue something that wasn’t said when you apparently understood what was said.

So, I'll just leave you to it.

It makes more sense for me to be ‘argueing’ than you telling us what you think someone else said !
Rereading the original comment it seems clear to me that my interpretation is perfectly valid.
Also not sure how you conclude ‘virtually no transfers are up front payments’. You don’t know that, you are guessing. And it’s not even relevant given my whole point was that even if Palace get staged payments that doesn’t mean any share due to us would also be staged. Payments are staged to ease cash flow, if you have £30 million and need to pay someone £6 million you don’t have a cash flow problem…..

[Stranded]

It's what guarantees we're getting at least something given we've been officially told we don’t have a sell on clause, even though the judgement involving his transfer suggests we do.

No idea if you get it on top of a sell on fee. I'd have thought any sell on fee includes that as part of it.

Errr, where does all this talk of us having a sell-on clause come from. Because (having read the Olise article in the Guardian today) I’ve just looked at the FA charge, and it relates to us agreeing in 2019 to a clause to pay his agent 10% of the money we received if/when we sold him. It wasn’t a 10% sell-on clause for us.

I can't recall. I remember it not being as clear cut as people were saying from a quick skim, but not something I put the effort intrying to be sure on.

It is stated in Paragraph 72 on page 17 where Olise's agents evidence states he had negotiated the deal with a redacted club that included a 10% sell on fee. This appears to be separate to the 10% of the transfer fee he was expecting.

[rabidbee]

Hmmm, I think he’s telling the FA he negotiated a fee with Palace that included his 10% sell-on clause (ie. Reading and Palace were happy with the sums involved and had agreed a schedule of payments.) otherwise, it seems odd it’s just referred to obliquely here, and not made clear in the evidence as a separate sell-on clause from the one that has been under discussion.

Especially as the club has already confirmed there is no sell-on fee due.

[Greatwesternline]

Hmmm, I think he’s telling the FA he negotiated a fee with Palace that included his 10% sell-on clause (ie. Reading and Palace were happy with the sums involved and had agreed a schedule of payments.) otherwise, it seems odd it’s just referred to obliquely here, and not made clear in the evidence as a separate sell-on clause from the one that has been under discussion.

Especially as the club has already confirmed there is no sell-on fee due.

Believing Mark Bowen's public utterances to Reading fans when trying to downplay their expectations for more signings, over written statements submitted to an FA disciplinary tribunal seems an odd choice of which evidence is strong reliable evidence and which is weak and unreliable.

Is this the sort of analysis we can expect from an academic?

The disciplinary tribunal is to decide whether a 10% commission between RFC and the agent calculated with reference to the transfer fee was offered by Reading. Whether Reading and Crystal Palace negotiated a sell-on clause between themselves is irrelevant to the case.

Which is why the sell-on fee is referred to obliquely, and not made clear. The sell-on fees and 10% of transfer fees (commisions) are not interchangable.


I have heard from Palace fans that their DoF told fans that there is a sell on clause. Its in Palace's interests to tell their fans there is one, and in Reading's fans interests to tell their fans there isnt one, so neither is a reliable source, the submissions to the tribunal seem much more likely to represent the facts.

[rabidbee]

Lol, touché. Obviously, I struggle to understand stuff if it isn't written in bastard secretary.